Sunday, November 24, 2013

To the General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association, Ms. Anne Ramberg

A Note to the readers of Professors blogg:

I
have been absent from the forum mainly due to a) I have been working in
a epidemiological investigation around a significant increasing of
suicide deaths among immigrants and refugees in Sweden, which I discovered
in October this year in statistical materials I had requested to the Swedish National Institute of Health; the manuscript is now under review by the Swedish
Medical Journal [Läkartidningen]; b) I had to finish my manuscript for the book “Rebeldes Con Causa – Mi vida con Miguel Enríquez, el MIR, y los Derechos Humanos”; a text I plan to make available here on the 1st of January 2014 – year of the 40th anniversary of the death in combat with Pinochet’s forces, of the revolutionary leader Miguel Enríquez Espinosa.

I reassume my publications in Professors blogg
with the publication of a noteworthy letter to the Chair of the Swedish
Bar Association by John Goss, Rafik Saley, and Okoth Osewe. It
contains a complaint against the lawyer of one of the two nominal accusers
in “the case of Sweden VS. Assange” – issue that has been characterized
in these columns as an scandalous or phony “legal case”; a case which
in true represents mainly a political action by proxy, from the part of
the US government, against WikiLeaks as organization and liberationist
concept.

Among other issues, the letter point out the falsely criticism ad hominem on Mr Julian Assange, exhibited at the site of the lawyer in question, Ms Elizabeth Fritz.

I
was invited to be a signatory of the letter. Ensuing, and intending to
contribute by enhancing argumentation in the draft sent to me, I studied
the following Swedish documents: a) Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen ("Freedom of speech", in constitutional law); b) Tryckfrihetsförordningen (Freedom of informaltion law, also a part of the constitution), and c) Regler för advokatverksamhet
(Rules in the activities of lawyers) - a document at the Swedish Bar
Association. My summarized conclusion after studying those documents was
that, although the items in the letter may be correctly stated, in Sweden
lawyers are not subjected to investigation/sanctions for the type
information activities pointed out in the letter.

On reflection, I decided not signing this
letter to the Swedish bar authorities. The gist is that Swedish legal procedures do not
suggest this is a viable way for non-parties to obtain reprisal for
unfairness. Also, authorities could launch bogus reprisals against
attorneys undertaking admirable but unpopular causes.

For
my part, I intend to continue to blog aggressively for the cause of
justice and human rights of the WikiLeaks founder. My next analysis to
be soon published in Professors blog is dealing with "Swedish legal system's biased management of accusations regarding purported sexual misconduct on Swedish women".

Best regards,

Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli, publisher of Professors blogg

To the General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association, Ms. Anne Ramberg

Dear Anne Ramberg,

We
the undersigned are lodging a formal complaint against lawyer Ms.
Elisabeth Mazzi Fritz to the Swedish Bar Association. It concerns her
dealings with the press in the Julian Assange case. Elizabeth Massi
Fritz represents the complainant Sofia Wilen. Ms. Massi Fritz has made
two conflicting statements one to the international press and one to the
Swedish press which are outlined in the last link contained in this
email.

An
article published on her official company website seeks to blacken the
character of Julian Assange and it contains potentially libellous and
certainly incorrect statements made by James Ball, a former and
disgruntled employee of Wikileaks. Despite contesting that her motives,
and those of the prosecution service, are not political, Ms. Massi Fritz
published a false political statement on her company´s website to the
detriment of Julian Assange under the heading “Fallet Julian Assange”.

We
find it objectionable at the very least that a professional versed in
legal matters can try to influence public opinion against someone who
has not been charged with any crime. We query whether such behaviour is
legal in Sweden and whether it adheres to the ethical stipulations of
the Swedish Bar Association. The following link brings up the article by
Mr. Ball which she includes on her website.

There
are glaring errors in the article which are prejudicial to Mr Assange.
Mr Ball stresses that during a John Humphrey’s interview Julian Assange
initiated an assault on the characters of the two accusers, when in
actual fact Assange said quite the opposite:

“It’s
a matter of public record as far as the courts are concerned but I’m
not going to be exposing other people’s lives or my own more than is
absolutely necessary. That is not what a gentleman does. We don’t know
precisely what pressures they [the women] have been under, exactly.
There are powerful interests that have incentives to promote these
smears. That does not mean that they got in there at the very beginning
and fabricated them.”

Ball
also selectively misquoted Assange taking what Assange said in the
Humphreys’ interview out of context. Ball claimed Assange said: “I’m not
saying it was a honey trap. I’m not saying it was not a honey trap”
when what Assange actually told Humphreys came in a series of questions
and answers which are reproduced here.

“Q: So you’re not suggesting that this was a honey-trap? That you were

somehow set up by the Americans, by the CIA? You don’t buy into that idea

because your lawyer’s suggested that that’s the case.

JA: He says that he was misquoted. I have never said that this is a

honey-trap.

Q: You don’t believe it?

JA: I have never said that this is not a honey-trap. I’m not accusing

anyone until I have proof.”

The
interview in full is available in two parts here. The second part
contains the above misquote starting at around 1 minute 15 seconds.

Ms.
Massi Fritz has also issued two separate statements, one to the
domestic and one to the international press. There are tangible
differences in these separate press releases and they contradict
information released to Mr. Assange´s defence team in the available
police protocol.

Contained in this link are the press statements from the office of Elizabeth Massi Fritz:

The
first released statement is the one to the right, containing the
information that Sofia Wilen herself reported a rape. The statement to
the left is released later (June 4th) is ante-dated to May 21st and no
longer claims that Sofia Wilen herself reported rape to the police.

We
suspect political motives because, firstly, the government of Ecuador
has repeatedly offered the use of its embassy premises in London for the
Swedish prosecutor or prosecution officials to question Mr. Assange.
Secondly, it is internationally known there are no known obstacles in
Swedish legal procedures to prohibit questioning of a suspect abroad,
because there are precedents. In April, the senior Swedish Supreme Court
judge, Stefan Lindskog, delivered a public lecture at Adelaide
university – Australia. He made it perfectly clear that pending legal
obstacles any final decision on an extradition request by the United
States government rests with the Swedish government. He also made it
clear that there is absolutely no hindrance to questioning Mr. Assange
in London. The Swedish prosecutor has refused to go to England to
question Assange, despite the issue of questioning being the only
objective of the European Arrest Warrant.

Lastly,
in exclusively blaming the government of Ecuador for the legal
stalemate that has arisen Ms. Massi Fritz has been unfair to Ms Wilen,
as well as Mr. Assange, through deliberately protracting the case. She
has published two separate statements using her position as a legal
representative on behalf of her client, the named accuser mentioned
above. Because she is fully aware – as well as any other informed person
– that the deadlock could be broken if the Swedish prosecution service
were to interview Julian Assange in London, as outlined above, or to
guarantee that Mr. Assange would not be extradited to the United States.
Her refusal to take either of these initiatives demonstrates that there
are political motives, rather than legal representation, underlying her
actions.

We
respect the integrity of your office and call upon you to investigate
the professional behaviour of lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz regarding the
human rights of Mr. Julian Assange to see whether discliplinary action
is appropriate under the Swedish Bar Association´s regulations.

That means: You are free to copy, distribute, display, the above-referred materials, under the following conditions

Attribution. You must attribute the work (full text, text excerpts, or artwork as indicated above) in this specified manner: Author’s name and hyperlink of the article or artwork in the Professors blog

Any of these conditions may be waived by seeking permission from Professors blogg. For contact email fdenoli@gmail.com